Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Penguins comments were quite clear and hardly subject to any reasonable interpretation outside of what he actually meant.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The logical fallacy of atheism
- Thread starter vskipper
- Start date
Penguins comments were quite clear and hardly subject to any reasonable interpretation outside of what he actually meant.
I agree with the last sentence. Religion does give direction, sense of purpose, and moral guidelines. For an example of life without moral guidelines I recommend most of modern San Fransisco & many other major metropolitan areas. America has become more secular & murder, child molestation, etc. has increased.
I have given links along with commentary. Y'all have produced personal conjecture. I am typing on a Nook. After awhile my wrists hurt. When I am at the library later with a real computer I can expand further.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
I'm all a titter with anticipation.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
And I used to have a blind dog - he couldn't see a dog bone if it was right in front of his face. Of course, he could still lick his own private parts.
FunctionalAtheist
Hammer of Reason
That is unsubstantiated rheteroic designed to manipulate religious people into voting for people pretending to know what god wants! Thank you for evidencing my point.
The fact is that the country was founded on secular beliefs and the past 75 years religious fervor has been on the rise. Please feel free to check facts.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Neither do overly simplistic claims which ignore basic logic and language usage.
Sha'irullah
رسول الآلهة
Another issue concerns me. Theological noncognitivism never gets much discussion these days. I really wish to know what a god is. I have found nothing mildly coherent and the evidence for sort of theism has been nil. So how can we make assertions about god when not even a single conception of god is likely. The mere word god has a serious lack of coherence all by itself and religion does not help.
I can easily argue on the basis of a positive that god without a doubt does not exist because the mere word means nothing.
If someone says "god is what created the universe". That is incoherrent because we do not need a god to create a universe since nobody can know what came before it as if that is even possible. Yet alone the fact that this does not need to be called god, it is just preexistence.
After this any arguments ends in wordplay.
"god is love". Love is love and cars are cars, no need for relabeling something and committing a fallacy.
"God is that which is worshiped". I worship myself and the cosmos, why would I call them god?
No matter what you try you will only end up with a fallacy or something irrelevant.
I can easily argue on the basis of a positive that god without a doubt does not exist because the mere word means nothing.
If someone says "god is what created the universe". That is incoherrent because we do not need a god to create a universe since nobody can know what came before it as if that is even possible. Yet alone the fact that this does not need to be called god, it is just preexistence.
After this any arguments ends in wordplay.
"god is love". Love is love and cars are cars, no need for relabeling something and committing a fallacy.
"God is that which is worshiped". I worship myself and the cosmos, why would I call them god?
No matter what you try you will only end up with a fallacy or something irrelevant.
Among Americans ages 18-29, one-in-four say they are not currently affiliated with any particular religion.
source:Statistics on Religion in America Report -- Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life
(note: @ kilgore ... that part that follows the semi-colon is called evidence. In topics of debate or differing views people generally do that.)
source:Statistics on Religion in America Report -- Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life
(note: @ kilgore ... that part that follows the semi-colon is called evidence. In topics of debate or differing views people generally do that.)
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
From your link:
"a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity"
A) there is the passive expression of belief. A non-belief in a God. It's the non-assertive, non-affirmative stance.
B) Affirmative, positive stance.
So take your time and read it a little more carefully. Most atheists belong to A). A few, some of them, belong to B).
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
To have no-belief is not the same as having belief-in-no.
The reason why your hearing is failing to distinguish the difference is because of the long training of extremisms and hard categorization of reality, common to our world today. You need to learn to see the gray areas in between black and white.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
note @ vskipper ... your comment has no coherent or cogent relation to anything I've said.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Since you're not an atheist, why do you insist that your definition of what atheism is the true one instead of asking what atheists consider atheism to be?
If I defined Christianity to be a group of aliens that stands on one leg and sing Yanke Doodle all day, that means I must be right and not what Christians say they are?
Listen, take your time and learn what atheists say about atheism instead of painting them with your own color. That way people might actually start taking you seriously. Until then, you'll lose the open line of communication because you rub everyone the wrong way. So take a deep breath. Learn to read, listen, and learn before you speak your mind about what they believe or not.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
And Machiavelli. He was against the existing religious establishment, but an atheist? That might be pushing it too far.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
I don't think he can see the difference.
Some people are "color blind" to words. Two words or sentences with slightly different meaning just quickly pass over their heads.
Oh, no, it won't pass over my head. I'm too quick and will catch it.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Question for you. Where's the semi-colon? There are several colons there, but no semi-colon. Besides, no, semi-colon or otherwise are not to distinguish between claim and evidence. That's not a grammar rule. Sorry.
FunctionalAtheist
Hammer of Reason
EXCUSE ME!!!! The correct termonolgoy is chromatically challenged! Color blind is our word~ :danana:
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Well, he gave us the evidence after the semi-colon... which wasn't there, so I guess it means no evidence. And as such, based on his previous hard-core extremism of interpreting the use of negatives, it must mean that he has proven himself the opposite. His missing semi-colon and lack of evidence must be evidence for the inverse of what he meant. :areyoucra Which in turn means that he gave us evidence that we were right and he was wrong, by simple omission.